Of Perez Hilton, Miss California, faith, and fair use

Both Perez Hilton and the Miss USA pageant are angry about having their clips …

This is a story about fair use—well, fair use, Miss California, boob jobs, Perez Hilton, and leaked lingerie photos. (Not that we, as Serious Journalists, take any pleasure in bringing all the salacious details to you.)

The controversy began when the Miss USA pageant employed gossip blogger (and scribble fetishist) Perez Hilton to serve as a judge of its competition. Perez asked Miss California, Carrie Prejean, about marriage and whether states should be restrict it to a one-man, one-woman arrangement.

Prejean said, in about the least articulate way possible, that it should be so restricted: "We live in a land that you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage. And—you know what?—in my country and in my family, I think that I believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman, no offense to anyone out there, but that's how I was raised and that's how I think that it should be, between a man and a woman."

Parse that if you can. Anyway, the next day, Hilton posted a reaction video to his website in which he called Prejean "a dumb bitch." (Yeah, everyone keeps it classy in this story.)

So—of course—the National Organization for Marriage used Hilton's clip in an ad of its own, claiming that many of those opposed to its view were intolerant. The ad, called "No Offense," is currently backed by a $1.5 million campaign.

Then things got weird. Perez Hilton's lawyers contacted NOM and told the group to "cease and desist" from using the copyrighted clip. NOM couldn't believe the letter.

"Mario, aka Perez, not only wants to redefine marriage, he is giving new meaning to the word 'chutzpah,'" said NOM Executive Director Brian Brown. "Here is a guy whose very public persona is an infringement on a celebrity and whose own website, a commercial enterprise, contains hundreds of images of celebrities now claims that his profane attack on a young contestant—which he himself posted on the Internet—is somehow protected under the law. Nice try, Mario, but you said it and we intend to keep it in our ad."

Well, OK. Perez's video is protected by the law, of course, so it's not clear why NOM suggests that it isn't, but copyright law includes some carve-outs in the form of "fair use." This particular use, grabbing a couple seconds of a clip for use in commentary and criticism, is exactly the sort of thing fair use covers—nearly a textbook case, it would seem.

It certainly is odd that Hilton would make such a claim; as NOM points out, his entire business is based on ripping off fairly using copyrighted, professional photos and scribbling naughty illustrations on them. Whether such uses truly are fair seems far more debatable than NOM's use, and probably isn't the sort of scrutiny that Hilton really wants to invite. (Hilton's copyright statement opens, "All images on perezhilton.com are readily available in various places on the Internet and believed to be in public domain." Um, what?)

Everyone loves cease-and-desists

But it wasn't just Hilton's lawyer; the lawyers for the Miss USA pageant got into the act, too, telling NOM that it could not use Prejean footage from the event.

Copyright attorney Ben Sheffner, who used to work for media companies like Fox and NBC Universal, can't understand what the lawyers are thinking here. He sums up the issue with eloquence, if a few dashes too many:

"Fair use? I sure think so. The ad comments directly on the pageant contestant's answer—which has become a significant national controversy—and is very brief. The Miss Universe organization—a joint venture between Donald Trump and NBC Universal—may not like its footage to be used for partisan purposes, but the fair use doctrine permits such uses—whether they like it or not."

As if the story isn't weird enough already, partially nude photos of Prejean are now circulating, the Miss USA pageant suggests she may have violated the rules, and the Miss California pageant (which Prejean won) admitted to paying for her breast augmentation surgery just before the Miss USA contest. Prejean has now hired her own publicists to issue quotes like, "I am a Christian, and I am a model. Models pose for pictures, including lingerie and swimwear photos."

No one emerges from this little tale looking too sparkly clean, though NOM appears to relish the controversy and notoriety of the situation. On the other hand, this is the group that thought being viciously mocked by Stephen Colbert was a tremendous victory.

104 Reader Comments

That NOM "No Offense" commercial is disgusting. Gay marriage supporters don't want to get into the debate because we're scared about what to say about religious freedom? Wha?! We're happy to get into the debate, but realize that ensuring that everyone has the right to marry the person of their choice is vastly more important. That NOM can twist a fight for equal rights into something dark like that is just sad. It is typical of the half-truths we have all come to expect from groups like NOM.

The reason to get all worked up: just when it seemed that people would start getting to do what they want in life, organizations based on "Jesus doesn't like that so you can't do it" are starting to gain a foothold again.

People who think that's swell are happy, but since only certain people get to say exactly what Jesus would or wouldn't like, the rest of us are worried...

I'm not sure I really get the controversy. Does Prejean not have a majority on her side when it comes to this issue? At least according to the last election in California. Regardless of the rest of the story, I keep coming back to the question "why was Perez Hilton a judge in this competition in the first place?". I mean, at the very lest he is dragging the whole institution through the mud with his post judging behaviour.

Since no one involved in this manufactured controversy is actually writing policy, I fail to see what the big deal is. The model is from California. The state that recently decided to legaly define gay marriage as a union between a man and a woman via one of the their infamous "Proposition" votes. Is it really all that surprising that she agrees with the majority of the voters from the state she lives in??

Perez was trying to create a controversy. The questions wasn't really appropriate for the setting, and IMHO the whole point of the questions was to create the controversy that is now driving web hits to Perez's web site. She isn't a politician, and even if she was, she's entitled to her opinion. Perez then went and attacked her, in a manner akin something you'd see in middle school, for having an opinion contrary to his. Free speach all around, YEAH!

Then he and the tournament get stupid and try to silence critisizm of his actions by way of the court. They are free to try, but no one here actually thinks they'll win, do they?

It's a case of a pretty, but inarticulate girl expressing her personal opinion, without making any attempt to change anyones mind and being just this side of crucified by an immature pseudo celebrity that disagrees with her.

Why any of this should appear on this site is beyond me. If I wanted to read tabloid press, I'd pick up one of my wifes magazines, not come to Ars. The only reason I read the article was because I (wrongly) assumed that there was some sort of compicating factor that made the "Fair Use" status of the clips questionable, and therefor worthy of closer scrutiny.

Prejean said, in about the least articulate way possible, that it should be so restricted

While I don't agree with her, I didn't find what she said inarticulate. She stated for her and her family, it defined a certain way. She stated it very clearly and honestly, and she offered reasoning behind why she held that belief. Feel free to disagree with her, but don't criticize her for offering an honest, concise answer.

Regardless of the rest of the story, I keep coming back to the question "why was Perez Hilton a judge in this competition in the first place?" I mean, at the very lest he is dragging the whole institution through the mud with his post judging behaviour.

It's a Donald Trump production. It may as well be the Jim Rose Circus. The minute Trump took over the institution was lost.

When this first came out, I thought this was Paris' brother or something. Looked him up in Wiki and then started wondering how he got invited to be a judge in a contest that supposedly prides itself on being clean and wholesome...I mean, if any of the contestants did the things that Perez Hilton does, then they would be disqualified from competing. I have to wonder if Miss USA asked him to be a judge just so they could get this type of controversy...Trump certainly is not above getting publicity any way he can...

That article made my day but you can't drop a link after the words partially nude in an article about a Miss USA contestant until after 5pm EST. I wanted to click on the link but figured it was NSFW. That damn link... Must.. Resist... I work with women... Damn you Ars...

quote:

Originally posted by CaMiX:I hate these kind of she said... then he said... and then they said... articles. Come on Ars please keep it to just the tech.

This is very much within the realm of an Ars article. There's a whole host of fair use articles on this site.

Personally I agree with Prejean. Who the hell wants to see that fat fuck Perez Hilton getting married. They should ban opposite sex marriages as well as in-case he's not actually gay. We don't need anymore of ilk around.

Apparently people are completely missing the point of this story- its about the fair use aspects, not what any of them said (though I believe the state should be completely OUT of the marriage question- no "licenses" and no control- its just a contract after all), its about the fair use implications.

People and their lawyers think that whenever somebody uses a part of their work- no matter how small- they are entitled to sue to stop them. Fortunately, fair use protects them from penalty for using works.

I think marrying plastic should also be illegal. Plastic boobies are everyone's right, and should be in the public domain rather than having copyrights. How the hell can anyone copy plastic boobies?!?! And, does anyone really want to deal with boobies 80 years after the death of their holder?

mikepaul - People who think that's swell are happy, but since only certain people get to say exactly what Jesus would or wouldn't like, the rest of us are worried...

Hate to burst anyone's bubble, but the rest of us don't really care.

quote:

CaMiX - I hate these kind of she said... then he said... and then they said... articles. Come on Ars please keep it to just the tech.

and

quote:

crmarvin42 - Why any of this should appear on this site is beyond me. If I wanted to read tabloid press, I'd pick up one of my wifes magazines, not come to Ars. The only reason I read the article was because I (wrongly) assumed that there was some sort of compicating factor that made the "Fair Use" status of the clips questionable, and therefor worthy of closer scrutiny.

Well, since this article, however briefly; hits on both IP and fair use, both regular topics on ARS, I would guess that it has a place here. If you don't like it, don't read it. Skip over to the next article and get over it.

quote:

Kressilac - That article made my day but you can't drop a link after the words partially nude in an article about a Miss USA contestant until after 5pm EST. I wanted to click on the link but figured it was NSFW. That damn link... Must.. Resist... I work with women... Damn you Ars...

Nate, you are going to make me click twice to get to the topless goods? WTF? Whatever happened to direct links?

quote:

On the other hand, this is the group that thought being viciously mocked by Stephen Colbert was a tremendous victory.

They are from the attention whore school of PR. They don't really care of the vast majority of the public sees them as baboonish prats. What they really need though is a boat ... and French spies to blow it up.

Copyright attorney Ben Sheffner, who used to work for media companies like Fox and NBC Universal, can't understand what the lawyers are thinking here. He sums up the issue with eloquence, if a few dashes too many:

I personally think you should refrain from commenting on other people's grammar based on the quality of writing in this article. I had to reread that first paragraph two times in order to understand your point.

Serious Journalists? Someone Who Doesn't Understand Capitalization Or Thinks He is Being Really Cute?

quote from Ingrid Schlueter, producer and co-host of the Crosstalk Radio Talk Show

"The fakery that produced the body of this woman is the embodiment of the fakery of the false church in America that is in bed with the world. The church yearns for a crown from the world — a crown made of fake gold with rhinestones. The crown of righteousness from Jesus Christ is discarded in favor of the swill of this world's corrupt system. It is right and fitting that this beauty pageant contestant is being upheld, because in all honesty, a nearly naked woman, strutting her surgically enhanced body parts in front of men while mouthing moral platitudes is the very picture of the carnal church today. Weep."

Originally posted by crmarvin42:The model is from California. The state that recently decided to legaly define gay marriage as a union between a man and a woman via one of the their infamous "Proposition" votes.

Wow, I wish they had done that, that would have made for some really interesting debates.

Originally posted by crmarvin42:The model is from California. The state that recently decided to legaly define gay marriage as a union between a man and a woman via one of the their infamous "Proposition" votes.

Wow, I wish they had done that, that would have made for some really interesting debates.

I'm not from California, so I don't know the particulars, but are you saying that's NOT what happened? Again, with the not from Cali, so I really don't know. What did prop 8 do then, if not

Originally posted by apoclypse:Personally I agree with Prejean. Who the hell wants to see that fat fuck Perez Hilton getting married. They should ban opposite sex marriages as well as in-case he's not actually gay. We don't need anymore of ilk around.

Lol, I wish she answered the question with that instead.

Prejean: "I'm not against gay marriage per se, just YOU getting married, that's what I'm worried about."

I understand reporting on this from a "let's examine the legalities" perspective. But you're reporting on how gossip rags and such go around having hissy cat fights over stupid pictures and content. It's bad enough those sites are online dumbing everyone down, but now we get articles in Ars that ponder it all. You can't ponder stupidity. You can't add logic to illogical morons. These folks doing these stupid gossip rags don't care about law. They all have double-standards, kiss someone's ass then turn around and back-stab them, etc, etc. Analyzing the logic and/or legalities of what they do just gives them more face time.

While I'm completely opposed to the NOM, I do think there are some just deserts in here for Perez Hilton, who's done his bit to stretch the meaning of "fair use." Random paintbrush doodles over copyrighted photos isn't quite what I'd call parody.

Prejean said, in about the least articulate way possible, that it should be so restricted

While I don't agree with her, I didn't find what she said inarticulate. She stated for her and her family, it defined a certain way. She stated it very clearly and honestly, and she offered reasoning behind why she held that belief. Feel free to disagree with her, but don't criticize her for offering an honest, concise answer.

Did you actually listen to what she said? I mean actually listen to her, not read the transcript. She made W sound eloquent!

Copyright attorney Ben Sheffner, who used to work for media companies like Fox and NBC Universal, can't understand what the lawyers are thinking here. He sums up the issue with eloquence, if a few dashes too many:

I personally think you should refrain from commenting on other people's grammar based on the quality of writing in this article. I had to reread that first paragraph two times in order to understand your point.

Serious Journalists? Someone Who Doesn't Understand Capitalization Or Thinks He is Being Really Cute?

Copyright attorney Ben Sheffner, who used to work for media companies like Fox and NBC Universal, can't understand what the lawyers are thinking here. He sums up the issue with eloquence, if a few dashes too many:

I personally think you should refrain from commenting on other people's grammar based on the quality of writing in this article. I had to reread that first paragraph two times in order to understand your point.

Serious Journalists? Someone Who Doesn't Understand Capitalization Or Thinks He is Being Really Cute?

I'm not sure if you're new to the site, or just Nate Anderson's writing, but that is his style. He's got a quirky sense of humor that usually involves little asides or comments on people's names, writing styles, or anything else that catches his fancy, it seems.

Personally, I thought it was hilarious. The core issues were covered, I understood clearly why it was on a tech site. But it was written such that I got a good laugh out of it and the ridiculousness of the situation was highlighted by Anderson's unique snarkiness.

Overall, I'd suggest you start avoiding Anderson's articles if you're going to approach the writing here with such tedium and drollishness. I, on the other hand, look forward to his stuff because they always guarantee at least a grin.

On a different note: I'm not worried because some people are saying what Jesus says is right or wrong; I'm worried that small groups of people who have taken it upon themselves to say what Jesus says is right or wrong is trying to make laws that forces ME to follow their interpretations. THAT's what worries me.